Savage Hog Hunter .308 scope mount?

Can anyone recommend anything? I've got a set of weaver rings so I'd rather not go with a Picatinny rail. I'd also like to have a one piece mount. The Weaver mounts I have are 2 separate mounts and I found that they don't place rings close enough together for my Redfield 2-7x32 scope. Any ideas?

Well, the problem I'm having is Savage's design designations in general. Its a Model 11/111, but nothing shows up. I just find it far more confusing than other manufacturers. Also, it doesn't help that MidwayUSA listed the Weaver 420M mount as fitting the Model 11 even though it doesn't.

jmr40

October 2, 2012, 11:52 PM

Savage rifles have much greater spacing between the holes for mounting a scope than any other rifle. If you own a Savage you either have to select a very long scope, or use special mounts. The smaller 2-7 scope is just not a good fit on a Savage. The 1 piece DNZ mounts will move the rings closer together and is the easiest fix other than trying a longer scope if you have one available.

http://swfa.com/Savage-C2617.aspx

You want mounts made for a short action or Savage model with 2 digits in the model number. They also specify for round or flat receiver. I have no idea whether the hog hunter is flat or round on top.

Personally I'd just use the DNZ. They are extremely strong since the base and bottom half of the ring are made in one piece. Simple to install, inexpensive and rock solid

Detritus

October 3, 2012, 12:08 AM

the issue is that just over the past 10 years or so, there have been for lack of a better phrase Too many different "scope mount hole configurations" within the savage line. The Mount/ring manufacturers rather much haven't been able to keep up, and some flat didn't/haven't tried figuring that they'd wait till Savage stopped re-engineering their receivers every six months.
And the "fit charts" sure as the devil haven't kept pace!

Anyway, my suggestion would be first, to contact someone like sharp shooter supply (http://www.sharpshootersupply.com/) who specializes in Savage and see which ones they recomend for the Hog Hunter model.

Also I don't understand why you dismiss a Picatinny rail due to having Weaver rings?? the Picatinny rail is the same dovetail size/profile as the Weaver, it simply has many more cross-slots and lacks the weaver base's lengthwise channel. (in-spec) Weaver rings will easily fit a picatinny rail, and the extra slots on a one-piece base gives you more flexability.

They also specify for round or flat receiver. I have no idea whether the hog hunter is flat or round on top.

Hog Hunters, as well as pretty much anything of current production, are Round top. the "flat top" is the Pre-accutrigger receiver that was phased out by at least 06 or 07. Even the Stevens rifles went to the round top receiver.

mdauben

October 3, 2012, 11:33 AM

this fad rifle aint nothing a standard rifle with standard fitting at a reasonable price wont do. forget the zombie bs etc. get real.
First, the Model 11 Hog Hunter is actually cheaper than their regular Model 11 Hunter, so the the comment about reasonable price doesn't make much sense.

Second, What does a gun marketed for hog hunting have to do with zombies??? :confused:

wtxj

October 3, 2012, 03:04 PM

Going to SWFA hopefully next week to put the mounts, rings and a scope on mine. Was going to put Talley mounts and rings. Now have the DNZ to look at also.
Whatever works, I'll try to remember to report back.

primalmu

October 3, 2012, 03:08 PM

I found that the Weaver 402M will give me enough extra space to mount my Redfield. At $6 I'm gonna try that before going with a more expensive mount.

helotaxi

October 4, 2012, 12:50 AM

the issue is that just over the past 10 years or so, there have been for lack of a better phrase Too many different "scope mount hole configurations" within the savage line. The Mount/ring manufacturers rather much haven't been able to keep up, and some flat didn't/haven't tried figuring that they'd wait till Savage stopped re-engineering their receivers every six months.
How is "2" too many? They have a long action and a short action. The only change that has occurred that affected the scope mounting was the move from the flat back to the round back receiver and that change happened over 10 years ago. If you're talking about stocks, well that's a different story but none of those changes affected the mounting of a scope. I would know, I have an older flat-back long action, a short action stagger-feed and a pair of short action center feeds. I just used a spare rail that I had on hand to fit to a friend's target action. That covers every action type that they have produced in the last 20 years at least. Only the flat-backed receiver, that's 20 years old, required anything different.

The dove tail dimensions and angles are close enough between the Weaver and 1913 rail that they are somewhat cross compatible, however the details of your description of the differences isn't accurate. The difference that actually matters is that the Weaver rail and Weaver rings have a round cross slot and round cross bolt. The 1913 spec calls for a square profile slot that is a bit wider and a cross bolt that is the full width of the slot whether it is a round or square profile. The center channel isn't material and I actually have a few 1913 rails that have the center machined out to save weight. It doesn't really do anything anyway. The end result of all this is that a Weaver ring will fit just fine on a 1913 rail because the smaller, round cross bolt will fit in the cross slot of the rail. If you push the rings all the way forward in the slot prior to tightening, they won't shift under recoil either. A 1913 ring will not fit on a Weaver rail though because the larger cross bolt won't fit in the cross slot. As far as number of slots, the 1913 standard specifies slot spacing. There is no specification for number or spacing. I've got Weaver bases with only 5 slots in a 6" rail.

Detritus

October 4, 2012, 02:24 AM

How is "2" too many?

try at least 4, and to be clear I am not talking about how the 4 mount holes are configured with regard to each other, but how each set (usualy the rear) is spaced with regard to other important points on the rifle. and i'll elaborate on what i mean below.

I spent most of the past two years working the gun counter at a sporting goods store with a policy of "Buy the rifle, scope, or mounts with us and we'll mount everything and boresight it for free, or $15 if you bring in all outside parts".
I can't count the number of savage made centerfire rifles, mostly long action stevens 200s, i've (re)scoped or simply installed mounts on (Leupold, and Redfield branded weaver types being our most common brands). on about 1in5 of them the "Savage" marked bases flat out would not fit without interfering with the operation of the rifle. Most common issue was that the rear base would either stick out over the back of the receiver ring blocking bolt manipulation, or when turned the other way would hold the ring at a slight angle and a scope wouldn't sit flat in the ring.

about a year and a half ago our Dept manager received notice passed down from Leupold that effectively said "Try the "savage" bases first, if that don't work sometimes the "A-Bolt" mounts will work. If neither works out. You're on your own".

specific case, we had a guy come in at 8am one morning who wanted as many long action Stevens rifles as he could get in "any caliber they make 'em except 7mm Mag", but if and only if we could mount and boresight a scope on every one of them, and have him out the door before noon when he had to leave to prep things for a Youth hunt. we had 10 rifles that met his caliber needs, 4 of them wouldn't take the same mounts as the other 6.
to be absolutely clear that's ten rifles with supposedly identical receivers (5 270s and 5 30-06s) with 4 of them needing a different base set from the others (the A-Bolt base worked).

strangely through all this I know that the spacing of the holes in relation to each other hasn't changed, since a one-piece base would fit +95% of the time as long as we pulled the right one for the action length (barring the flat Vs round top issue) we only had one incident where a 1-piece Leupold base wouldn't fit, and I feel that that one was an out of spec base. The middle hole in the base was out of line with the receiver hole enough that you could see it wasn't lined up, much less try and start the screw

helotaxi

October 5, 2012, 11:09 PM

That sounds like a machining problem, not a "difference". Savage had some problems with drilling the receivers correctly from time to time. It was not a design or receiver change and wasn't intentional at all. It was simply a machinist screwing up. The fact that they were inconsistent is the first clue. If they were consistent, there would be a reliable fix. Since there wasn't a fix that worked every time...

primalmu

October 5, 2012, 11:47 PM

I installed the 402M Weaver mount today and it worked perfectly. Now I've got my lighter weight Redfield scope on my Savage.

a-sheepdog

October 5, 2012, 11:51 PM

Like helotaxi said, DNZ Gamereaper. Dednutz makes great mounts.

Eureka40

November 22, 2012, 07:15 PM

If I were to use the DNZ Game Reaper mounts on a Savage Hog Hunter, would I want the high, medium, or low mount? Could you still use the irons with a high mount?

Detritus

November 22, 2012, 07:27 PM

Could you still use the irons with a high mount?

I don't beleive that any of the DNZ One-piece sets are see-through types (meaning i beleive they're all solid without any kind of hole). So i'd say no.

the Game Reapers are kind of the opposite of the quick detatch, and see-thru rings on the market. they're made to be as sturdy, and Bubba-proof as possible, with no real provision for being able to use Iron sights.

If you want to swap between Irons and scoped use, that's a whole other discussion and range of products.

Eureka40

November 23, 2012, 12:21 PM

Thanks for the quick response. One more question regarding the Hog Hunter. Do you think this Vortex scope will work with the low mount?

http://swfa.com/Vortex-3-9x40-Crossfire-Rifle-Scope-P51735.aspx

ZGunner

November 23, 2012, 12:38 PM

Maybe. I have model 10 PC with the DNZ low rings holding a Nikon Monarch. I get some slight rub on the scope from the play in the bolt. I can deal with it because I never really need a quick follow up so I can take my time and my cheeck weld is perfect. This also might be the larger bolt handle that comes on the PC. YMMV.

jmr40

November 23, 2012, 05:06 PM

Generally speaking a 40mm scope works with low rings. There are exceptions depending on the individual scope and barrel contour. If you want to use the irons also some QD mounts would work much better than see throughs.